Baseline Monitoring Document and As Built Baseline Report
Baseline Monitoring Document and As Built Baseline Report
FINAL Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site Rowan County, North Carolina EEP Contract 003983 EEP Project Number 95023
Submitted to:
NCEEP, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Monitoring Data Collected: February/March 2014 Date Submitted: September 2014
Monitoring and Design Firm
Prepared by:
KCI Associates of North Carolina, PC 4601 Six Forks Rd, Suite 220 Raleigh, NC 27609 (919) 783-9214
Project Contact: Adam Spiller Email: [email protected] KCI Project No: 20100798
September 2014
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.4 2.0 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.2 2.3 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5 3.2.6 3.2.7 3.3 3.4 4.0 5.0
PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND, AND ATTRIBUTES ................................................ 1 Location and Setting ..................................................................................................................... 1 Project Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................ 1 Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach....................................................................... 1 Project Structure............................................................................................................................ 1 Project Restoration Type and Approach ....................................................................................... 2 Project History, Contacts and Attribute and Data ......................................................................... 2 SUCCESS CRITERIA ...................................................................................................................... 2 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability ........................................................................... 3 Dimension ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Pattern and Profile......................................................................................................................... 3 Substrate ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Sediment Transport ....................................................................................................................... 3 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Hydrology ..................................................................................................................................... 4 MONITORING PLAN ..................................................................................................................... 4 Stream Hydrology ......................................................................................................................... 4 Stream Channel Stability and Geomorphology............................................................................. 4 Dimension ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Profile ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Pattern ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Visual Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 5 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Digital Photos................................................................................................................................ 5 Watershed Conditions ................................................................................................................... 5 Monitoring Guidelines .................................................................................................................. 5 Maintenance and Contingency ...................................................................................................... 5 BASELINE CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................. 6 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 7
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
Appendix A – General Tables and Figures Figure 1. Project Site Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Asset Map Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits Figure 3. Monitoring Plan View Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3. Project Contacts Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Appendix B – Morphological Summary Data and Plots Tables 5a-5d. Baseline Stream Data Summary Table 6. Cross-Section Morphology Data Tables Cross-Section Plots Longitudinal Profile Plots Pebble Counts Photo Reference Points
Appendix C – Vegetation Data Table 7. CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Appendix D – As-Built Plan Sheets As-Built Plan Sheets
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site, completed in January 2014, restored a total of 4,971 linear feet and enhanced 446 linear feet along three tributaries to Irish Buffalo Creek in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. The completed project will return these tributaries to a stable stream ecosystem, lower the sediment supply entering Irish Buffalo Creek, and reduce incoming nutrients from livestock. This project also looks to expand aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the Rocky River Watershed (03040105). The project is located in the Irish Buffalo Creek Drainage (03040105020040), which the EEP has identified as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW). The site’s 1.07-square mile watershed is comprised predominantly of pasture and mixed hardwoods, with an area of rural residential development in the northeastern corner. Prior to construction, the site was actively used for timber and cattle production for over five generations. The project streams became degraded primarily through a long history of logging, grazing, and channelization. The site consists of three tributaries to Irish Buffalo Creek – Tributary 1 (T1), Tributary 2 (T2), and Tributary 1A (T1A). The pre-restoration assessment classified T1 and T2 as G4 stream types. The banks of T1 were impacted by the removal of riparian vegetation and grazing along the entire length of the project stream. The stream also lacked distinct pool and riffle features; erosion from unstable banks and the upper slopes contributed to an excess amount of sediment that had impacted these features. The upstream portion of T2 was in transition with initial forest cover becoming less dense and the banks beginning to experience more bank erosion when moving further downstream until a large bedrock feature. Downstream of the bedrock feature, T2 transitioned into a straightened, highly constrained channel. The upstream portion of T1A had a stable channel pattern, but the stream was experiencing bed degradation as it flowed down the valley. The lack of riparian vegetation exacerbated bank erosion. Further downstream, T1A became less steep and had more mature trees along its banks, with isolated areas of bank erosion. An old pond berm existed downstream where it became a dispersed channel with poorly defined banks and planform. After the stream flowed through the old pond berm, it began to quickly incise to reach the confluence with T1. The streams showed channel incision as indicated by bank height ratios ranging from 1.9 to 8.6. The project goals and objectives are listed below. Project Goals Restore a diverse riparian corridor that connects forested stream systems upstream and downstream of the project. Reduce the sediment supply entering Irish Buffalo Creek. Project Objectives Restore stable channel planforms to streams that have been straightened and modified. Reshape and stabilize eroding stream banks. Plant the site with native trees to help reestablish a diverse riparian corridor. Install exclusion fencing and alternative watering options to keep livestock out of the project streams.
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
i
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
Project construction was completed in August 2013. The project restored 4,971 linear feet of stream, and enhanced 306 linear feet of stream with Enhancement I and 140 linear feet with Enhancement II. The overall approach to the design of Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site was a Priority 1 approach, which involved creating the appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile and reconnecting the floodplain to an elevation at or similar to the historic floodplain elevation, while the existing channel was abandoned and filled (Rosgen, 1997). The streams at the Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site were restored to a combination of C4 and B4c/C4 Rosgen stream types. Grade control, habitat structures, and constructed riffles were utilized to maintain the riffle and pool sequence in the newly constructed channels. Where feasible, the native riffle material from the existing channel was used to enhance the newly constructed riffles. The constructed and enhanced riffles were installed to provide protection from bed scour associated with the unstable, erosive soils at the site. The riparian buffer was planted as Piedmont Alluvial Forest and Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest Communities (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Site activities provide 5,231 Stream Mitigation Units. The site is protected by a permanent conservation easement to be held by the State of North Carolina. There were only limited modifications made to the design plan during construction. On T1, one step pool was relocated, and the riffle grade control at the end of the stream was extended to the confluence with Irish Buffalo Creek. Due to the extra structures and additional work required to stabilize the channel on the upper reach of T2 (T2-1 as shown in the original design), the mitigation type has been changed from Enhancement I as described in the mitigation plan to restoration. For photos of restored T2 see Photo Point 6 in Appendix B. Three drainage stabilizations were also added on T2. The baseline stream profile for T2 shows riffle and pool variation upstream of Station 110+78 when compared to the design profile, indicating that excess sand is still moving through the system from upstream or previous bank erosion. These stream features will continue to be monitored to make sure that any observed changes are within the range of variability found in stable stream systems. The monitoring components were installed in February/March 2014. The monitoring plan includes two longitudinal profiles on T1 and T2 and ten cross-sections, seven in riffles and three in pools. Nine permanent photo points have been established with a total of nineteen photos to be taken annually. To determine the success of the planted buffer, sixteen permanent vegetation monitoring plots were established according to the CVS-EEP protocol. The site will be monitored for at least five years or until the success criteria are achieved. Reports will be submitted to the EEP each year. The first year of monitoring will take place in 2014. The planted riparian buffer must meet the success criteria of a site average of 320 planted stems/acre at the end of the monitoring period based on the vegetation monitoring plots. The baseline monitoring counted an average of 589 stems/acre in the 16 stream vegetation monitoring plots. Stream success will be assessed utilizing measurements of stream dimension, pattern, and profile as well as through site photographs. Two bankfull events also must occur on the restored streams over the monitoring period in separate monitoring years.
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
ii
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
1.0
PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND, AND ATTRIBUTES
1.1 Location and Setting The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) has completed the restoration and enhancement of 5,417 linear feet of stream at the Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site (hereafter referred to as the “Site”) to assist in fulfilling stream mitigation goals in the area. The Site is located west of China Grove and north of Kannapolis off of Saw Road (Figure 1, Appendix A). The Site is within the 03040105 Rocky River Watershed Cataloging Unit (8-digit HUC) and the 03040105020040 Irish Buffalo Creek Local Watershed Unit (14-digit HUC) (NCDENR, EEP 2009). In the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program’s (EEP) most recent publication of excluded and Targeted Local Watersheds/Hydrologic Units, the 03040105020040 14-digit HUC has been identified as a Targeted Local Watershed. The Site is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province and the project streams initiate as headwater systems out of moderately-sloped, forested hills before reaching the floodplain of Irish Buffalo Creek. The site’s 1.07-square mile project watershed is comprised predominantly of pasture and mixed hardwoods, with an area of rural residential development in the northeastern corner. Prior to construction, the site was actively used for timber and cattle production for over five generations. 1.2 Project Goals and Objectives The project goals and objectives are listed below. Project Goals Restore a diverse riparian corridor that connects forested stream systems upstream and downstream of the project. Reduce the sediment supply entering Irish Buffalo Creek. Project Objectives Restore stable channel planforms to streams that have been straightened and modified. Reshape and stabilize eroding stream banks. Plant the site with native trees to help reestablish a diverse riparian corridor. Install exclusion fencing and alternative watering options to keep livestock out of the project streams. 1.3 Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach 1.3.1 Project Structure The Site consists of three tributaries to Irish Buffalo Creek – Tributary 1 (T1), Tributary 2 (T2), and Tributary 1A (T1A). The mitigation work included 4,971 linear feet of restoration, 306 linear feet of Enhancement I, and 140 linear feet of Enhancement II for a total of 5,231 Stream Mitigation Units as shown in Figure 2 and described in Table 1 in Appendix A. T1 and T2 were both restored and each are considered as their own reaches due to the same design approach along their entire lengths. T2A was divided into three reaches: T1A-1 (306 lf Enhancement I), T1A-2 (140 lf Enhancement II), and T1A-3 (470 lf restoration). Planting occurred within 15.9 acres of the 17.2-acre conservation easement, including the stream banks and floodplain. Target natural communities consist of Piedmont Alluvial Forest for the riparian areas for T1, T2, and T1A-3, and Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest for the riparian areas for T1A-1 and T1A-2 (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
1
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
1.3.2 Project Restoration Type and Approach Prior to construction, the project streams had become degraded primarily through a long history of logging, grazing, and channelization. The project streams showed evidence of bank erosion and undercutting along with channelization in portions of each reach; there were also high levels of channel incision as indicated by bank height ratios ranging from 1.9 to 8.6. Furthermore, most of the project streams did not have vegetation on the banks and consequently lacked the rooting strength and cover protection to prevent further bank erosion from occurring. The pre-restoration assessment classified T1 and T2 as G4 stream types. The banks of T1 were impacted by the removal of riparian vegetation and grazing along the entire length of the project stream. The stream also lacked distinct pool and riffle features; erosion from unstable banks and the upper slopes contributed to an excess amount of sediment that had impacted these features. The approach used for T1 was Priority 1 restoration to bring up the stream to a floodplain elevation and to reestablish natural sinuosity. The upstream portion of T2 was in transition with forest cover becoming less dense and the banks beginning to experience bank erosion until moving further downstream and reaching a large bedrock feature. Downstream of the bedrock feature, T2 transitioned into a straightened, highly constrained channel. For T2, the design also employed Priority 1 restoration to recreate a meandering channel at a higher elevation to engage the floodplain. The upper portion of T2 was originally designed as Enhancement I, but the level of work needed to stabilize the stream during construction involved grade control and habitat structure installation, significant bank grading, and minor planform adjustments consistent with restoration. The upstream portion of T1A had a stable channel pattern, but the stream was experiencing bed degradation as it flowed down the valley. The lack of riparian vegetation increased bank erosion. Further downstream, it became less steep and had more mature trees along its banks, with isolated areas of bank erosion. An old pond berm existed downstream where it became a dispersed channel with poorly defined banks and planform. After the stream flowed through the old pond berm, it began to quickly incise to reach the confluence with T1. A combination approach was used for T1A: Enhancement I at the top 306 linear feet where there was more instability, Enhancement II for 140 linear feet where only minor bank adjustments and planting were needed, and restoration with a Priority 1 approach for the remaining 470 linear feet that had begun to incise severely after the pond berm. 1.4 Project History, Contacts and Attribute and Data The project was first identified as a full-delivery mitigation project developed for the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) restoration by KCI Associates of NC, PA. This project began in the planning phase in 2011 with the final mitigation plan completed in September 2012. Construction began in early 2013. Site construction was completed in August 2013 and it was planted in January 2014. Completed project activities, reporting history, completion dates, project contacts, and background information are summarized in Tables 2-4 (Appendix A).
2.0 SUCCESS CRITERIA 2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability Monitoring of the Site shall consist of the collection and analysis of stream stability and riparian/stream bank vegetation survivability data to support the evaluation of the project in meeting established restoration objectives. Specifically, project success will be assessed utilizing measurements of stream dimension and profile, site photographs, and vegetation sampling.
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
2
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
The purpose of monitoring is to evaluate the stability of the restored stream. Following the procedures established in the USDA Forest Service Manual, Stream Channel Reference Sites (Harrelson et al. 1994) and the methodologies utilized in the Rosgen stream assessment and classification system (Rosgen D.L. 1994 and 1996), data collected will consist of detailed dimension measurements, longitudinal profiles, and bed materials sampling. 2.1.1 Dimension The cross-section surveys shall provide a detailed measurement of the stream and banks and will include points on the adjacent floodplain or valley, at the top of bank, bankfull, at all breaks in slope, the edge of water, and thalweg. Width/depth and entrenchment ratios will be calculated for each cross-section based on the survey data. Cross-section measurements should show little or no change from the as-built crosssections. However, some change is natural and expected, indicating that the site is settling postconstruction. Changes that may indicate destabilizing conditions include significant widening or deepening of the riffle section or a consistent trend of change over the course of the monitoring. For a pool cross-section, deepening is frequently a positive change while consistent filling of the pool may indicate destabilization. If changes do occur, they will be evaluated to determine whether they are minor adjustments associated with settling and increased stability or whether they indicate movement toward an unstable condition. 2.1.2 Pattern and Profile For the profile, the reach under assessment should not demonstrate any trends in thalweg aggradation or degradation over any significant continuous portion of its length. The profile should also demonstrate contrasting bedform diversity against the pre-existing condition. Bedform distributions, riffle/pool lengths and slopes will vary, but should do so around design distributions. The majority of pools should be maintained at greater depths with lower water surface slopes while riffles should be shallow with greater water surface slopes. Pattern features should show little adjustment over the monitoring period. 2.1.3 Substrate Substrate measurements, from annual pebble count data, should indicate the progression towards, or the maintenance of, the anticipated distributions from the design phase. While stream projects are designed to transport bedload in equilibrium and carry overall sediment loads at bankfull, fines can be transported even at low discharges and upstream instability beyond design projections can also lead to deposition as storm events recede in areas of energy dissipation such as restoration reaches. This can have the effect of obscuring bedform and fining of riffles especially in the first few years after the implementation of a stream project. In many cases subsequent narrowing and reduction of W/D ratios as a project develops/stabilizes can then increase transport efficiency and return bedform to intended distributions, but some fining can persist due to upstream disturbance. 2.1.4 Sediment Transport Maintenance of sediment transport will be evident by stable features in the monitored cross-sections and profile. From these two indicators, there should be no evidence of any significant trend in aggradation or degradation throughout the channel.
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
3
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
2.2 Vegetation Vegetation success is based on the criteria established in the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines (2003). This document states that vegetation monitoring results should have the following planted stem density minimums in the corresponding monitoring years: 320 stems/acre through Year Three, 288 stems/acre in Year Four, and 260 stems/acre in Year Five. If monitoring indicates that the specified survival rate is not being met, appropriate corrective actions will be developed to include invasive species control, the removal of dead/dying plants, and replanting. 2.3 Hydrology Success criteria include documentation of a minimum of two bankfull events during the monitoring period. In addition, bankfull events must occur during separate monitoring years.
3.0
MONITORING PLAN
Annual monitoring will be conducted during the first full growing season following project completion. Monitoring of the Site’s restoration efforts will be performed for stream, vegetation, and hydrology components of the Site until success criteria are fulfilled. The establishment, collection, and summarization of monitoring data shall be conducted in accordance with the EEP document entitled Procedural Guidance and Content Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports (version 1.5) (NCEEP 2012). Permanent monuments, marking monitoring feature locations, were established on-site in February 2014. The locations of these monitoring features are shown in Figure 3 in Appendix A. 3.1 Stream Hydrology Two automatic recording gauges have been installed along T1 and T2 to record water levels, indicating when bankfull events occur. 3.2 Stream Channel Stability and Geomorphology Data to be collected consists of detailed dimension and pattern measurements, a longitudinal profile, and bed materials sampling. Stream data will be calculated from the monitored longitudinal profiles and cross-sections (Appendix B). Various morphological parameters will be calculated from this information such as bankfull slopes, pool-to-pool spacing, and feature lengths. 3.2.1 Dimension Ten total permanent monitoring cross-sections have been established on the Site. Six riffle cross-sections and four pool cross-sections have been installed on the tributaries; locations are depicted on Figure 3 (Appendix A). Permanent monuments of rebar have been established at each end of these cross-sections. These cross-sections will be surveyed each year, with measurements occurring at bankfull, top of bank, edge of water, and other significant breaks in slope. Data will be used to calculate width-depth ratios, entrenchment ratios, and bank height ratios for each cross-section. Photographs will also be taken at each permanent cross-section annually. 3.2.2 Profile Two longitudinal profiles have been established (approximately 1,500 linear feet each on T1 and T2) and will be used to evaluate stream pattern and longitudinal profile each monitoring year, (see Figure 3, Appendix A). The profiles will be surveyed in detail, documenting the elevations of the thalweg, water surface, and bankfull. Pool and riffle features will be called out to calculate feature slopes and lengths.
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
4
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
3.2.3 Pattern Pattern measurements have been taken for the as-built condition and are documented in this report. Future pattern measurements will not be taken unless there is evidence that significant geomorphological adjustments have occurred. 3.2.4. Visual Assessment A visual assessment of the stream to include an assessment of the bank (lateral stability), bed (vertical stability), the easement boundary, and vegetation will be completed each year to document the necessary parameters required for the EEP monitoring report. 3.2.5 Vegetation Sixteen vegetation plots were set up and assessed for the baseline vegetation monitoring. The plots were installed with flagged metal conduit at each corner and a flagged PVC pipe was installed at the photo corner. Vegetation data collection must follow the CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation (Lee et al. 2008, http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm). The baseline vegetation monitoring was conducted as Level 1: Inventory of Planted Stems, as will the first-year monitoring. Beginning in Year Two and continuing throughout the rest of the monitoring period, the Site will be monitored using the Level 2 protocol. Baseline vegetation plot information can be found in Appendix C. 3.2.6 Digital Photos Nine photograph reference points (PRPs) have been established as part of the baseline monitoring to assist in characterizing the Site and to allow qualitative evaluation of the Site conditions. Starting in the first monitoring year, these photos will be taken in late summer, so that vegetative conditions are similar at the Site between monitoring years. 3.2.7 Watershed Conditions Yearly monitoring will document any evident changes in the watershed. Any large hydrologic events in the watershed, such as tropical storms or hurricanes, will also be documented in the yearly monitoring reports. 3.3 Monitoring Guidelines The first scheduled monitoring will be conducted during the first full growing season following project completion. Monitoring shall subsequently be conducted annually for a total period of five years or until the project meets its success criteria. Annual monitoring reports will be prepared and submitted after all monitoring tasks for each year are completed. The report will document the monitored components and include all collected data, analyses, and photographs. Each report will provide the new monitoring data and compare the most recent results against previous findings. The monitoring report format will be similar to that set out in Version 1.5 (NCEEP 2012). 3.4 Maintenance and Contingency KCI will monitor the Site on a regular basis and conduct a physical inspection of the Site a minimum of once per year throughout the post-construction monitoring period until performance standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site construction and may include reinstallation of coir matting, removal of debris from the channel, stabilization of bank erosion with protective structures, or adjustments to in-stream structures. Any maintenance activities will be documented in the yearly monitoring reports. Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
5
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
4.0 BASELINE CONDITIONS Baseline stream monitoring data were collected in February 2014. Any changes made to the design during construction are shown on the As-Built Site Plan in Appendix D. The majority of the restoration reaches were implemented as designed. On T1, one step pool was relocated, and the riffle grade control at the end of the stream was extended to the confluence with Irish Buffalo Creek. Due to the extra structures and additional work required to stabilize the channel on the upper reach of T2 (T2-1 as shown in the original design), the mitigation type has been changed from Enhancement I as described in the mitigation plan to restoration. For photos of restored T2 see Photo Point 6 in Appendix B. Three drainage stabilizations were also added on T2. The profile features along T2 were built as designed, but upstream of Station 110+78 they have become obscured by sand deposition from the surrounding watershed. This sediment is still working through the system and it is expected that riffle and pool features will develop over time. This part of the stream is stable and these stream features will continue to be monitored to make sure that any observed changes are within the range of variability found in stable stream systems. Table 5 compares the designed morphological values and ratios to the as-built values and ratios of the restored streams (Appendix B). Overall, the Site was built as designed. The differences between the designed and as-built channels are minor. T1A is being monitored visually and therefore there are no asbuilt data included in Table 5. The Site was planted with a total of nine different species of bare root trees in January 2014. Baseline vegetation monitoring data were collected in February 2014. The Level 1 CVS-EEP protocol (http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm) was used to collect vegetation data. Plot photos from all the vegetation plots can be found in Appendix C. The results of the vegetation baseline monitoring show an average of 589 stems per acre in the planted stream zone (Table 7. Appendix C). Additionally, stem counts within each individual plot were wellabove the required 320 stems per acre except for plots 1 and 6. An attempt to identify all trees was made, but since monitoring was conducted during the dormant season, many were unidentifiable. All trees will be positively identified during the first year of monitoring.
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
6
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
5.0
REFERENCES Harrelson, C.C., C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: an Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Lee, Michael T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm) NCDENR, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2009. Lower Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin Priorities 2009. Raleigh, NC. http://www.nceep.net/services/restplans/Yadkin_Pee_Dee_RBRP_2009_Final.pdf NCDENR, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 6/8/2012. Procedural Guidance and Content Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports. NCEEP Monitoring Report Template, Version 1.5. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=1169848&folderId=7135626 &name=DLFE-53021.pdf Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22: 169-199. Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books. Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. In: Wang, S.S.Y., E.J. Langendoen, and F.D. Shields, Jr. (Eds.). Proceedings of the Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. pp. 12-22. Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, 3rd Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, NCDEHNR, Division of Parks and Recreation. Raleigh, NC. Sprecher, S. W. and Warne, A. G. 2000. "Accessing and Using Meteorological Data to Evaluate Wetland Hydrology," ERDC/EL TR-WRAP-00-01, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, US Environmental Protection Agency, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and NCDENR, Division of Water Quality. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Wilmington, NC.
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
7
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
APPENDIX A General Tables and Figures
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits Jacob's Ladder Stream Restoration Site, EEP Project # 95023 Mitigation Credits Riparian Wetland
Stream Type Length Credits TOTAL CREDITS
R 4,971 4,971
EI 306 204
Non-riparian Wetland
Nitrogen Nutrient Offset
Buffer
EII 140 56
5,231 Project Components
Project Component -orReach ID T1
Design Stationing/ Location 10+00-34+89*
Restoration Footage
Existing Footage
Approach (P1, P2 etc.)
Restoration -orRestoration Equivalent
1,809
P1
Restoration
2,389*
1:1
-
Enhancement I
306
1:1.5
140 498 2,084*
1:2.5 1:1 1:1
T1A-1
50+00-53+06
306
T1A-2 T1A-3 T2
53+06-54+46 54+46-59+44 99+75-121+60*
140 470 1,246
Enhancement II P1 Restoration P1 Restoration Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (linear feet)
Mitigation Units (SMU)
Restoration
4,971
4,971
Enhancement I
306
204
Enhancement II
140
56
Mitigation Ratio
TOTAL SMU 5,231 *Mitigation units have been calculated to exclude the easement exceptions and water utility easements. There were no BMP elements included in this project.
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
Table 2. Project Activity & Reporting History Jacob's Ladder Stream Restoration Site Data Collection Actual Completion Complete or Delivery
Activity or Report Mitigation Plan Final Design - Construction Plans Construction Planting Baseline Monitoring/Report
Feb/March 14
Sept 12 Dec 12 Aug 13 Jan 14 April 14
Table 3. Project Contacts Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site Design Firm
Construction Contractor
Planting Contractor
Monitoring Performers MY-00
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
KCI Associates of North Carolina, PC Landmark Center II, Suite 220 4601 Six Forks Rd. Raleigh, NC 27609 Contact: Mr. Tim Morris Phone: (919) 278-2512 Fax: (919) 783-9266 Wright Contracting, LLC 160 Walker Road Lawndale, NC 28090 Contact: Mr. Stephen James Phone: (704) 692-4633 Forestree Management Co. 1280 Maudis Road Bailey, NC 27807 Contact: Mr. Tony Cortez Phone: (252) 243-2513
KCI Associates of North Carolina, PC Landmark Center II, Suite 220 4601 Six Forks Rd. Raleigh, NC 27609 Contact: Mr. Adam Spiller Phone: (919) 278-2514 Fax: (919) 783-9266
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
Table 4. Project Information Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site Project Name County Project Area (acres) Project Coordinates (lat. and long.) Physiographic Province River Basin USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit DWQ Sub-basin Project Drainage Area Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area CGIA Land Use Classification
Parameters
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site Rowan County 17.2 acres 35.552956 N, 80.653116 W Project Watershed Summary Information Piedmont Yadkin-Pee Dee 03040105 USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 13-17-09 682 acres/1.06 square miles
03040105020040
1.1%/8 acres 15.8% Cultivated, 35.1% Managed Herbaceous Cover, 41.6% Mixed Upland Hardwoods, 6.9% Mixed Hardwoods/Conifers, and 0.5% Southern Yellow Pine Reach Summary Information (Post-Restoration) T1
T1A-1, T1A-2, T1A-3
T2
2,389 VIII 231.6 acres
944 VIII 34.5 acres
2,084 VIII 450.1 acres
Class C, WSIII
Class C, WSIII
Class C, WSIII
C4
B4c/C4
C4
Evolutionary trend
Stage II (Constructed)
Stage II (Constructed)
Stage II (Constructed)
Mapped Soil Series
Chewacla loam
Pacolet sandy loam
Drainage class Soil Hydric status Slope
Poorly drained Non hydric 0-2%
Well drained Non hydric 0-2%
AE (portion in backwater of Irish Buffalo Creek only)
N/A
AE (portion in backwater of Irish Buffalo Creek only)
Native vegetation community
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest & Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
0%
0%
0%
Length of reach (linear feet) Valley classification Drainage area (acres) NCDWQ Water Quality Classification Morphological Description (stream type)
FEMA classification
Pacolet sandy loam & Chewacla loam Well drained Non hydric 0-2%
Regulatory Considerations Regulation Waters of the United States – Section 404 Waters of the United States – Section 401 Endangered Species Act* Historic Preservation Act* Coastal Zone Management Act * (CZMA)/ Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Yes
Yes, received 404 permit
N/A
Yes
Yes, received 401 permit
N/A
No No
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Essential Fisheries Habitat*
No
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
Floodplain development permit completed through Rowan County N/A
N/A N/A
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
0
~
~ c:
"'IJ :I:
G'l
0
iii(;)
"'IJ
~
m ,....
b
0
0
£0 z
II I
z -I
-:a
..::!l
m
g z
"D
5-I
< ..::!l
I Ii
n
n zcn
::0 0
0
en en bi m n
m
~
~
:::t
0
0
")(
~ cn m
z
z
~
!I:
zm
-I
.,, I!,..,.. ~ ~
:Al
m
D
"' ... ,N
"tis:
>~
Z::::j
>:!j
;;;:i!m
;nz
001 ~;:
..~:ii
~f;1;:
Cl!j'l!S
-:a"Tl-a~
-t>-4>
:;!
m I
-...:':::-~~--...:::_,' , ", ' ,'~ ! \ \,'---- - - '- .... ' . . . ., n '-\. \, '-'" --- - - . . .-... ::............. .::-.. . . . . ez ·~
REVISIONS
..,_.,..,
I
DATI
1:1
~I
s;r= z-t
-uc
m&:i
~>
-IQ)
:;:
;i;:z: 0 !:!
u
n
c» q
~
.........
CJ+~
~~~
"1!11!\1
I
I
i \I
I
"- '
,__,
u~~-i~o
\
,
1 I
'\ 1
'-1
\
REACH T1
CHINA GROVE, ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1
---- -
~
'-
\
I
I I
'-
I I
ASSOCIATES IF ti:
I
:::i5:KC I ~
:-.
.J
..._').: I
'I
~
4601 SIX FORKS ROAD RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2T609
z~
~
8~li1 !j! Cl
;?!~~
~tJ~~ Jl§;!l~ "QN
!:ll'l ;l~o>
-IQ)
:;:
;i;:z: 0 !:!
u
n
--------
/
/\
...
'-
\
\ \
\
\
'11,, ' ' ·, II I \ \ \ \ , , \ ' 11 I \ \ \ '. \ \ \ ' '
, - - \ , \ ,\\_
ii 11, 11 11 ; 111 11
I
\\\\
\
\ iBi!
\
\
I I
,, , ' , , - , \ . ' - \ \
\ \ \. \ \ \
\
1
\ \ \ \
-p
'b
\I
\
I
\
\
\ \ \ \
1
:(1 Ii'\
1 11
I
~
1
,,.
I 11
I
Jll
I ; 1\11
- \
r,1
\
,'
\ \
--
CHINA GROVE, ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH T1A
8-
:l!J
!'I
"I 1 ,
I
}
',
' \' \ \ \ \ \ ,
'\
\ \ \\ \
'"9°'-,,,,,,,,, ,,
,_)k
'...
:::i5:KC I
I ,
I
1:11:
I - 1
I I
1 I I I
I'
1111 1' \1 ! '.S,...1~1 v,~~ \ I
1 I I 1I 11111 11 111 1 \ 1\1\I I 1 IIII I I 1 II 1I 1 I
',
1\ I
1"6~up
~,
11\11 ~\\\\\~ 11 11,1 ,~,,1, \I~
.
/
4601 SIX FORKS ROAD RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27609
--
//
_'(?
/
/ I
I
/
-- -
I
_n
l;J'\
~
',
\
\
i:~Wtht .........
~~
"...
''.
\
' ' - , ..._
\
)(
•'Iii
- 1t
'\
........
.......
..............~ ................ .......
......
I'... '
T
~
,. -
"'-
' ---;-- --
-IC=; - .:;; :: ::
',
......
--, _--
' , .......................
- -. . ...
-,
',~....... ' '
""'-' , , '
\.
' -. . . . . . . . . '
'-,
"
\
'-,
''-\ \
'~
Ii
·~
', '\
',
'..__ ....._ '- ,
1, ..........._
"'.
I \
~ ...
\
\ \
\ \.._ ' - , ' , .,_ '" -.. .._ ',.._ ' \ , ' , '
"'' f'•:I(
CON8£RV>.TION EASEM;NT
J
/,--
,--
~/
'b
,
/
1-~
/'/
1 1,
I/
I;
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / / / // }/ J
/1
/ 11 / ; I 1 I
/
~
~/;
/ / /1 1 JJl11 111\ , \. / / l ; 1 1(l111 l , / \ I 111\"'/ / I / / /I I I I I 1 I \ \ , '/ I I / I I I I \.\ o J , \ \ \ /1'11'11 1 / \ ,, , / 1 /1 1 1111 '-, ' ''' 1 / 111 11 '·, \ \ '
1111 1 1 ,1 \ 1 \ ~ 1 1 '
I~\
I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1111 11 11111, 1 I : I 11 I1 I1 I \.\
11
I \ \ 0 \ \ \ \ I I \ \ \j.\ \ \ '\ \\ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \
I \ ' \'-.. I 1 ' .,_ .,_ ' \ \\ \ \\ . I \ \ \ ' \ \\ \ \ I ' ' ' .,, ' ' ,\ \\ \ \\ \\\ ' " I I "-... '-.._ '.'- \ \ ' \ \ \ \ ' ,, '\'.\--(-II ' ......, , , ' , ' ' " , \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ ( \ \\
\ \ \ \\
I
\
I \ \ \\\ \\\ \\
\\\ ' ' \'\\\ \ \ '.\\\\ ' ' ' '
\\I \ I
1 ' \ ' ' ' ' '1' , \ , 1 \ 1
\ \ '-
I\\\
1\\1\ I 11 / \\ I
~1/ 11\'\\,\\\, \ ~\~ I\\\ I \\\I\ ~.\¥~~"\\ \\\ \~ '':\\ 111 1 1 '\':., .... ,,~,\,\\,\\\~ ''''\';,1 ' \\''\S) ,\,::\'~,\11 ,,,, ,,, , 'I.'
-IQ)
:;:
;i;:z: 0 !:!
u
n
REACH T2
CHINA GROVE, ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
JACOB'S LADDER STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT
==
:::i5:KC I 4601 SIX FORKS ROAD RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27609
ASSOCIATES IF ti: ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS
~7sz- ~ J
i:~Wtht .........
~~
si
~
~
~
'8 z
I'... '
REVISIONS
..,_,..,
q
Oii
q
,,,..
q
I
. .1(
1:1
~I
s;r= z-t
"tic
m&:i
~>
-IQ)
:;:
;i;:z: 0 !:!
u
n
J,...
'
"
-'
REACH T2
CHINA GROVE, ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
rrSsk
- '-.. .
Zt:;!;c
0
~,.qLocb ........._ -
1~181-f 13uf:".
--..
...~.
/
i
6
~
f'
8
\
/
/
/
\ \
'--,
\
'-
''\
\
==
\
\
'
/
....... 117+00',
'',,,
'fr0 'r l'!r1
:::i5:KC I
/
\
/ '\
4601 SIX FORKS ROAD RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27609
ASSOCIATES IF ti: ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS
"
/
0
·>~
1l
~'"'
im "' g~~~ ~>~
~i;i~ ... ~'"
Q~Pj
JACOB'S LADDER STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT
q
Cll
~
q
q ~ q
\
~
i:~Wtht .........
·--
~~
11
!il
:::j
i
I'... '
REVISIONS
,,.._,..,
I
. .1(
RIPARIAN ZONE PIEDMONT ALLUVIAL PLANTING ZONE= 14-2ACRES (1117.579 SQ.FT.) ~~~~-'iZ.
12" - 18" BARE ROOT MATERIAi. 11211 STEMS/ACRE (Ir X 5.25' SPACING), RANOOM SPECIES PLACEMENT
______________ _ SQUARE CllT-----~
!:QMMQNNAME
&!:IENTIFI!; NAME
RIYERBIRCH GREEN ASH TUUPPOPLAR SYCAMORE WILLOW OAK BEAUTYBERRY TAG ALDER SOUTHERN RED OAK -ITEOAK PERSIMMON
BETULA NIGRA FRAXINUS PENNSYLVANICA LIRIDDENDRON T\JLIPIFERA PLATANUS OCCIDENTAi.iS QUERCUS PHELLOS CALLICARPA AMERICANA AUNUS SERRULATA QUERCUS FALCATA QUERCUS Al.BA DIOSPYROS \llRGINIANA
%QFTDTAI.
#OF PLANT'S
17 16 12 13 15 17 8 1
2200
BUDS (FACING UPWARD)
1900 1600 17CO
2000 2200
1100 100 200 100 13,000
2
1
SECTION VIEW
MESIC ZONE
~
MESIC MIXED HARD\MlOD PLANTING ZONE= 1.13ACRES ("9,337 SQ.FT.)
I
12" - 18" BARE ROOT MATERIAi. 11211 STEMS/ACRE (Ir X 5.25' SPACING), RANOOM SPECIES PLACEMENT
!:QMMQNNAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME
PINOAK TUUPPOPLAR SOllTHERN RED OAK -ITEOAK PERSIMMON
QUERCUS P~STRIS LIRIDDENDRON T\JLIPIFERA QUERCUS FALCATA QUERCUS Al.BA DIOSPYROS \llRGINIANA
% OF TOTAi.
#OF PLANTS
25 19 19 19 19
~
300 300 300 300
1600
l -r r " ~ ~ l I I i I I I I I I
3'
UJ
I I
Mm§; - LIVE STAKES REDUCED ON INNER BAR LOCATIONS ONSIDE MEANDER BENDS).
0
0
~
:::j
0
UJ
i
i
0
PLAN VIEW SlREAM ZONE
D
STREAM ZONE LIVE STAKES: 1.6' TO 2' LENGTHS, 112' TO :I!' DIAMETER, 2 RO\o\'S AT 3' CENTER SPACING (SEE DETAIL), RANDOM SPECIES PLACEMENT
COMMON NAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME
BLACK WILLOW SILKY WILLOW SILKY DC>GV.UOD ELDERBERRY
SAUXNIGRA SALIX SERICEA CORNUS AMOMUM SAMBUCUS CANADENSll:l
LIVE STAKES DETAIL SCALE: NTS
,_ "' ,_
"',._ "'
!!!
z
0
~!I! \!! u
ON
:::dm z
"-:z:
...... oz u~ "'a: a:::; ~~ ... "'z .,OU .... "' it
mm "' ~ .:;
)(,_
Li)~ 5z
~~ ;;;
...a:--'
"'z "' < z
:J 0
....~ a: Iw C3 Cl -, :I: z 0 < Ii: 0:: 0:: 0 Nw a.. z ....
u f:: z r1 0 !::: f:: (.) :::!: 0~ .... ' a: ~:::!:
~
0:: ....
..
NC QAID
~-·
-80'-40'
O'
CJ)
..,..
0
g a:
...
I-
II)
w
:I:
u < w < z a: (!)
:c u MARCH201~
"""''GRAPHIC
PLANTING PLAN 51£ET
9
OF
10
PIEDMONT ALLUVIAL ZONE
~
~
MESIC HARDWOOD ZONE
D
STREAM ZONE
>~B1 Lt~ ~
.... "' !!! .... z
"',._ "' 0
~!I! \!! u
ON
:::dm z
"-:z:
...... oz u~ "'a: a:::; ~~ ... "'z .,OU ....
mm
"' it "' ~ .:;
)(
~~ ;;;
...a:--'
"'z "' 0
0
0
Q
....
Li)~ 5z
< z
.... (..)
:J 0
a:
w C3 -,
:I:
0 Ii: ~ w a.. 0z Cl
0:: 0::
Cl z CIQ
:5 i= ~~ cc -
....
-
z
~z
0
u
~
z II) w 0 !::: :I: (..) :::!: 0~ u ~ ~ ::!: a: a:
~
0:: ....
NC QRJD
~llAD'IS
CJ)
g a: (!)
< z
:c u
..,.,
MARCH201~
"""''GRAPHIC
PLANTING PLAN 51£ET
10
OF 10
FINAL Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site Rowan County, North Carolina EEP Contract 003983 EEP Project Number 95023
Submitted to:
NCEEP, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Monitoring Data Collected: February/March 2014 Date Submitted: September 2014
Monitoring and Design Firm
Prepared by:
KCI Associates of North Carolina, PC 4601 Six Forks Rd, Suite 220 Raleigh, NC 27609 (919) 783-9214
Project Contact: Adam Spiller Email: [email protected] KCI Project No: 20100798
September 2014
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.4 2.0 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.2 2.3 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5 3.2.6 3.2.7 3.3 3.4 4.0 5.0
PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND, AND ATTRIBUTES ................................................ 1 Location and Setting ..................................................................................................................... 1 Project Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................ 1 Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach....................................................................... 1 Project Structure............................................................................................................................ 1 Project Restoration Type and Approach ....................................................................................... 2 Project History, Contacts and Attribute and Data ......................................................................... 2 SUCCESS CRITERIA ...................................................................................................................... 2 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability ........................................................................... 3 Dimension ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Pattern and Profile......................................................................................................................... 3 Substrate ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Sediment Transport ....................................................................................................................... 3 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Hydrology ..................................................................................................................................... 4 MONITORING PLAN ..................................................................................................................... 4 Stream Hydrology ......................................................................................................................... 4 Stream Channel Stability and Geomorphology............................................................................. 4 Dimension ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Profile ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Pattern ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Visual Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 5 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Digital Photos................................................................................................................................ 5 Watershed Conditions ................................................................................................................... 5 Monitoring Guidelines .................................................................................................................. 5 Maintenance and Contingency ...................................................................................................... 5 BASELINE CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................. 6 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 7
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
Appendix A – General Tables and Figures Figure 1. Project Site Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Asset Map Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits Figure 3. Monitoring Plan View Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3. Project Contacts Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Appendix B – Morphological Summary Data and Plots Tables 5a-5d. Baseline Stream Data Summary Table 6. Cross-Section Morphology Data Tables Cross-Section Plots Longitudinal Profile Plots Pebble Counts Photo Reference Points
Appendix C – Vegetation Data Table 7. CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Appendix D – As-Built Plan Sheets As-Built Plan Sheets
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site, completed in January 2014, restored a total of 4,971 linear feet and enhanced 446 linear feet along three tributaries to Irish Buffalo Creek in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. The completed project will return these tributaries to a stable stream ecosystem, lower the sediment supply entering Irish Buffalo Creek, and reduce incoming nutrients from livestock. This project also looks to expand aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the Rocky River Watershed (03040105). The project is located in the Irish Buffalo Creek Drainage (03040105020040), which the EEP has identified as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW). The site’s 1.07-square mile watershed is comprised predominantly of pasture and mixed hardwoods, with an area of rural residential development in the northeastern corner. Prior to construction, the site was actively used for timber and cattle production for over five generations. The project streams became degraded primarily through a long history of logging, grazing, and channelization. The site consists of three tributaries to Irish Buffalo Creek – Tributary 1 (T1), Tributary 2 (T2), and Tributary 1A (T1A). The pre-restoration assessment classified T1 and T2 as G4 stream types. The banks of T1 were impacted by the removal of riparian vegetation and grazing along the entire length of the project stream. The stream also lacked distinct pool and riffle features; erosion from unstable banks and the upper slopes contributed to an excess amount of sediment that had impacted these features. The upstream portion of T2 was in transition with initial forest cover becoming less dense and the banks beginning to experience more bank erosion when moving further downstream until a large bedrock feature. Downstream of the bedrock feature, T2 transitioned into a straightened, highly constrained channel. The upstream portion of T1A had a stable channel pattern, but the stream was experiencing bed degradation as it flowed down the valley. The lack of riparian vegetation exacerbated bank erosion. Further downstream, T1A became less steep and had more mature trees along its banks, with isolated areas of bank erosion. An old pond berm existed downstream where it became a dispersed channel with poorly defined banks and planform. After the stream flowed through the old pond berm, it began to quickly incise to reach the confluence with T1. The streams showed channel incision as indicated by bank height ratios ranging from 1.9 to 8.6. The project goals and objectives are listed below. Project Goals Restore a diverse riparian corridor that connects forested stream systems upstream and downstream of the project. Reduce the sediment supply entering Irish Buffalo Creek. Project Objectives Restore stable channel planforms to streams that have been straightened and modified. Reshape and stabilize eroding stream banks. Plant the site with native trees to help reestablish a diverse riparian corridor. Install exclusion fencing and alternative watering options to keep livestock out of the project streams.
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
i
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
Project construction was completed in August 2013. The project restored 4,971 linear feet of stream, and enhanced 306 linear feet of stream with Enhancement I and 140 linear feet with Enhancement II. The overall approach to the design of Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site was a Priority 1 approach, which involved creating the appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile and reconnecting the floodplain to an elevation at or similar to the historic floodplain elevation, while the existing channel was abandoned and filled (Rosgen, 1997). The streams at the Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site were restored to a combination of C4 and B4c/C4 Rosgen stream types. Grade control, habitat structures, and constructed riffles were utilized to maintain the riffle and pool sequence in the newly constructed channels. Where feasible, the native riffle material from the existing channel was used to enhance the newly constructed riffles. The constructed and enhanced riffles were installed to provide protection from bed scour associated with the unstable, erosive soils at the site. The riparian buffer was planted as Piedmont Alluvial Forest and Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest Communities (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Site activities provide 5,231 Stream Mitigation Units. The site is protected by a permanent conservation easement to be held by the State of North Carolina. There were only limited modifications made to the design plan during construction. On T1, one step pool was relocated, and the riffle grade control at the end of the stream was extended to the confluence with Irish Buffalo Creek. Due to the extra structures and additional work required to stabilize the channel on the upper reach of T2 (T2-1 as shown in the original design), the mitigation type has been changed from Enhancement I as described in the mitigation plan to restoration. For photos of restored T2 see Photo Point 6 in Appendix B. Three drainage stabilizations were also added on T2. The baseline stream profile for T2 shows riffle and pool variation upstream of Station 110+78 when compared to the design profile, indicating that excess sand is still moving through the system from upstream or previous bank erosion. These stream features will continue to be monitored to make sure that any observed changes are within the range of variability found in stable stream systems. The monitoring components were installed in February/March 2014. The monitoring plan includes two longitudinal profiles on T1 and T2 and ten cross-sections, seven in riffles and three in pools. Nine permanent photo points have been established with a total of nineteen photos to be taken annually. To determine the success of the planted buffer, sixteen permanent vegetation monitoring plots were established according to the CVS-EEP protocol. The site will be monitored for at least five years or until the success criteria are achieved. Reports will be submitted to the EEP each year. The first year of monitoring will take place in 2014. The planted riparian buffer must meet the success criteria of a site average of 320 planted stems/acre at the end of the monitoring period based on the vegetation monitoring plots. The baseline monitoring counted an average of 589 stems/acre in the 16 stream vegetation monitoring plots. Stream success will be assessed utilizing measurements of stream dimension, pattern, and profile as well as through site photographs. Two bankfull events also must occur on the restored streams over the monitoring period in separate monitoring years.
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
ii
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
1.0
PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND, AND ATTRIBUTES
1.1 Location and Setting The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) has completed the restoration and enhancement of 5,417 linear feet of stream at the Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site (hereafter referred to as the “Site”) to assist in fulfilling stream mitigation goals in the area. The Site is located west of China Grove and north of Kannapolis off of Saw Road (Figure 1, Appendix A). The Site is within the 03040105 Rocky River Watershed Cataloging Unit (8-digit HUC) and the 03040105020040 Irish Buffalo Creek Local Watershed Unit (14-digit HUC) (NCDENR, EEP 2009). In the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program’s (EEP) most recent publication of excluded and Targeted Local Watersheds/Hydrologic Units, the 03040105020040 14-digit HUC has been identified as a Targeted Local Watershed. The Site is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province and the project streams initiate as headwater systems out of moderately-sloped, forested hills before reaching the floodplain of Irish Buffalo Creek. The site’s 1.07-square mile project watershed is comprised predominantly of pasture and mixed hardwoods, with an area of rural residential development in the northeastern corner. Prior to construction, the site was actively used for timber and cattle production for over five generations. 1.2 Project Goals and Objectives The project goals and objectives are listed below. Project Goals Restore a diverse riparian corridor that connects forested stream systems upstream and downstream of the project. Reduce the sediment supply entering Irish Buffalo Creek. Project Objectives Restore stable channel planforms to streams that have been straightened and modified. Reshape and stabilize eroding stream banks. Plant the site with native trees to help reestablish a diverse riparian corridor. Install exclusion fencing and alternative watering options to keep livestock out of the project streams. 1.3 Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach 1.3.1 Project Structure The Site consists of three tributaries to Irish Buffalo Creek – Tributary 1 (T1), Tributary 2 (T2), and Tributary 1A (T1A). The mitigation work included 4,971 linear feet of restoration, 306 linear feet of Enhancement I, and 140 linear feet of Enhancement II for a total of 5,231 Stream Mitigation Units as shown in Figure 2 and described in Table 1 in Appendix A. T1 and T2 were both restored and each are considered as their own reaches due to the same design approach along their entire lengths. T2A was divided into three reaches: T1A-1 (306 lf Enhancement I), T1A-2 (140 lf Enhancement II), and T1A-3 (470 lf restoration). Planting occurred within 15.9 acres of the 17.2-acre conservation easement, including the stream banks and floodplain. Target natural communities consist of Piedmont Alluvial Forest for the riparian areas for T1, T2, and T1A-3, and Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest for the riparian areas for T1A-1 and T1A-2 (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
1
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
1.3.2 Project Restoration Type and Approach Prior to construction, the project streams had become degraded primarily through a long history of logging, grazing, and channelization. The project streams showed evidence of bank erosion and undercutting along with channelization in portions of each reach; there were also high levels of channel incision as indicated by bank height ratios ranging from 1.9 to 8.6. Furthermore, most of the project streams did not have vegetation on the banks and consequently lacked the rooting strength and cover protection to prevent further bank erosion from occurring. The pre-restoration assessment classified T1 and T2 as G4 stream types. The banks of T1 were impacted by the removal of riparian vegetation and grazing along the entire length of the project stream. The stream also lacked distinct pool and riffle features; erosion from unstable banks and the upper slopes contributed to an excess amount of sediment that had impacted these features. The approach used for T1 was Priority 1 restoration to bring up the stream to a floodplain elevation and to reestablish natural sinuosity. The upstream portion of T2 was in transition with forest cover becoming less dense and the banks beginning to experience bank erosion until moving further downstream and reaching a large bedrock feature. Downstream of the bedrock feature, T2 transitioned into a straightened, highly constrained channel. For T2, the design also employed Priority 1 restoration to recreate a meandering channel at a higher elevation to engage the floodplain. The upper portion of T2 was originally designed as Enhancement I, but the level of work needed to stabilize the stream during construction involved grade control and habitat structure installation, significant bank grading, and minor planform adjustments consistent with restoration. The upstream portion of T1A had a stable channel pattern, but the stream was experiencing bed degradation as it flowed down the valley. The lack of riparian vegetation increased bank erosion. Further downstream, it became less steep and had more mature trees along its banks, with isolated areas of bank erosion. An old pond berm existed downstream where it became a dispersed channel with poorly defined banks and planform. After the stream flowed through the old pond berm, it began to quickly incise to reach the confluence with T1. A combination approach was used for T1A: Enhancement I at the top 306 linear feet where there was more instability, Enhancement II for 140 linear feet where only minor bank adjustments and planting were needed, and restoration with a Priority 1 approach for the remaining 470 linear feet that had begun to incise severely after the pond berm. 1.4 Project History, Contacts and Attribute and Data The project was first identified as a full-delivery mitigation project developed for the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) restoration by KCI Associates of NC, PA. This project began in the planning phase in 2011 with the final mitigation plan completed in September 2012. Construction began in early 2013. Site construction was completed in August 2013 and it was planted in January 2014. Completed project activities, reporting history, completion dates, project contacts, and background information are summarized in Tables 2-4 (Appendix A).
2.0 SUCCESS CRITERIA 2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability Monitoring of the Site shall consist of the collection and analysis of stream stability and riparian/stream bank vegetation survivability data to support the evaluation of the project in meeting established restoration objectives. Specifically, project success will be assessed utilizing measurements of stream dimension and profile, site photographs, and vegetation sampling.
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
2
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
The purpose of monitoring is to evaluate the stability of the restored stream. Following the procedures established in the USDA Forest Service Manual, Stream Channel Reference Sites (Harrelson et al. 1994) and the methodologies utilized in the Rosgen stream assessment and classification system (Rosgen D.L. 1994 and 1996), data collected will consist of detailed dimension measurements, longitudinal profiles, and bed materials sampling. 2.1.1 Dimension The cross-section surveys shall provide a detailed measurement of the stream and banks and will include points on the adjacent floodplain or valley, at the top of bank, bankfull, at all breaks in slope, the edge of water, and thalweg. Width/depth and entrenchment ratios will be calculated for each cross-section based on the survey data. Cross-section measurements should show little or no change from the as-built crosssections. However, some change is natural and expected, indicating that the site is settling postconstruction. Changes that may indicate destabilizing conditions include significant widening or deepening of the riffle section or a consistent trend of change over the course of the monitoring. For a pool cross-section, deepening is frequently a positive change while consistent filling of the pool may indicate destabilization. If changes do occur, they will be evaluated to determine whether they are minor adjustments associated with settling and increased stability or whether they indicate movement toward an unstable condition. 2.1.2 Pattern and Profile For the profile, the reach under assessment should not demonstrate any trends in thalweg aggradation or degradation over any significant continuous portion of its length. The profile should also demonstrate contrasting bedform diversity against the pre-existing condition. Bedform distributions, riffle/pool lengths and slopes will vary, but should do so around design distributions. The majority of pools should be maintained at greater depths with lower water surface slopes while riffles should be shallow with greater water surface slopes. Pattern features should show little adjustment over the monitoring period. 2.1.3 Substrate Substrate measurements, from annual pebble count data, should indicate the progression towards, or the maintenance of, the anticipated distributions from the design phase. While stream projects are designed to transport bedload in equilibrium and carry overall sediment loads at bankfull, fines can be transported even at low discharges and upstream instability beyond design projections can also lead to deposition as storm events recede in areas of energy dissipation such as restoration reaches. This can have the effect of obscuring bedform and fining of riffles especially in the first few years after the implementation of a stream project. In many cases subsequent narrowing and reduction of W/D ratios as a project develops/stabilizes can then increase transport efficiency and return bedform to intended distributions, but some fining can persist due to upstream disturbance. 2.1.4 Sediment Transport Maintenance of sediment transport will be evident by stable features in the monitored cross-sections and profile. From these two indicators, there should be no evidence of any significant trend in aggradation or degradation throughout the channel.
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
3
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
2.2 Vegetation Vegetation success is based on the criteria established in the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines (2003). This document states that vegetation monitoring results should have the following planted stem density minimums in the corresponding monitoring years: 320 stems/acre through Year Three, 288 stems/acre in Year Four, and 260 stems/acre in Year Five. If monitoring indicates that the specified survival rate is not being met, appropriate corrective actions will be developed to include invasive species control, the removal of dead/dying plants, and replanting. 2.3 Hydrology Success criteria include documentation of a minimum of two bankfull events during the monitoring period. In addition, bankfull events must occur during separate monitoring years.
3.0
MONITORING PLAN
Annual monitoring will be conducted during the first full growing season following project completion. Monitoring of the Site’s restoration efforts will be performed for stream, vegetation, and hydrology components of the Site until success criteria are fulfilled. The establishment, collection, and summarization of monitoring data shall be conducted in accordance with the EEP document entitled Procedural Guidance and Content Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports (version 1.5) (NCEEP 2012). Permanent monuments, marking monitoring feature locations, were established on-site in February 2014. The locations of these monitoring features are shown in Figure 3 in Appendix A. 3.1 Stream Hydrology Two automatic recording gauges have been installed along T1 and T2 to record water levels, indicating when bankfull events occur. 3.2 Stream Channel Stability and Geomorphology Data to be collected consists of detailed dimension and pattern measurements, a longitudinal profile, and bed materials sampling. Stream data will be calculated from the monitored longitudinal profiles and cross-sections (Appendix B). Various morphological parameters will be calculated from this information such as bankfull slopes, pool-to-pool spacing, and feature lengths. 3.2.1 Dimension Ten total permanent monitoring cross-sections have been established on the Site. Six riffle cross-sections and four pool cross-sections have been installed on the tributaries; locations are depicted on Figure 3 (Appendix A). Permanent monuments of rebar have been established at each end of these cross-sections. These cross-sections will be surveyed each year, with measurements occurring at bankfull, top of bank, edge of water, and other significant breaks in slope. Data will be used to calculate width-depth ratios, entrenchment ratios, and bank height ratios for each cross-section. Photographs will also be taken at each permanent cross-section annually. 3.2.2 Profile Two longitudinal profiles have been established (approximately 1,500 linear feet each on T1 and T2) and will be used to evaluate stream pattern and longitudinal profile each monitoring year, (see Figure 3, Appendix A). The profiles will be surveyed in detail, documenting the elevations of the thalweg, water surface, and bankfull. Pool and riffle features will be called out to calculate feature slopes and lengths.
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
4
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
3.2.3 Pattern Pattern measurements have been taken for the as-built condition and are documented in this report. Future pattern measurements will not be taken unless there is evidence that significant geomorphological adjustments have occurred. 3.2.4. Visual Assessment A visual assessment of the stream to include an assessment of the bank (lateral stability), bed (vertical stability), the easement boundary, and vegetation will be completed each year to document the necessary parameters required for the EEP monitoring report. 3.2.5 Vegetation Sixteen vegetation plots were set up and assessed for the baseline vegetation monitoring. The plots were installed with flagged metal conduit at each corner and a flagged PVC pipe was installed at the photo corner. Vegetation data collection must follow the CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation (Lee et al. 2008, http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm). The baseline vegetation monitoring was conducted as Level 1: Inventory of Planted Stems, as will the first-year monitoring. Beginning in Year Two and continuing throughout the rest of the monitoring period, the Site will be monitored using the Level 2 protocol. Baseline vegetation plot information can be found in Appendix C. 3.2.6 Digital Photos Nine photograph reference points (PRPs) have been established as part of the baseline monitoring to assist in characterizing the Site and to allow qualitative evaluation of the Site conditions. Starting in the first monitoring year, these photos will be taken in late summer, so that vegetative conditions are similar at the Site between monitoring years. 3.2.7 Watershed Conditions Yearly monitoring will document any evident changes in the watershed. Any large hydrologic events in the watershed, such as tropical storms or hurricanes, will also be documented in the yearly monitoring reports. 3.3 Monitoring Guidelines The first scheduled monitoring will be conducted during the first full growing season following project completion. Monitoring shall subsequently be conducted annually for a total period of five years or until the project meets its success criteria. Annual monitoring reports will be prepared and submitted after all monitoring tasks for each year are completed. The report will document the monitored components and include all collected data, analyses, and photographs. Each report will provide the new monitoring data and compare the most recent results against previous findings. The monitoring report format will be similar to that set out in Version 1.5 (NCEEP 2012). 3.4 Maintenance and Contingency KCI will monitor the Site on a regular basis and conduct a physical inspection of the Site a minimum of once per year throughout the post-construction monitoring period until performance standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site construction and may include reinstallation of coir matting, removal of debris from the channel, stabilization of bank erosion with protective structures, or adjustments to in-stream structures. Any maintenance activities will be documented in the yearly monitoring reports. Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
5
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
4.0 BASELINE CONDITIONS Baseline stream monitoring data were collected in February 2014. Any changes made to the design during construction are shown on the As-Built Site Plan in Appendix D. The majority of the restoration reaches were implemented as designed. On T1, one step pool was relocated, and the riffle grade control at the end of the stream was extended to the confluence with Irish Buffalo Creek. Due to the extra structures and additional work required to stabilize the channel on the upper reach of T2 (T2-1 as shown in the original design), the mitigation type has been changed from Enhancement I as described in the mitigation plan to restoration. For photos of restored T2 see Photo Point 6 in Appendix B. Three drainage stabilizations were also added on T2. The profile features along T2 were built as designed, but upstream of Station 110+78 they have become obscured by sand deposition from the surrounding watershed. This sediment is still working through the system and it is expected that riffle and pool features will develop over time. This part of the stream is stable and these stream features will continue to be monitored to make sure that any observed changes are within the range of variability found in stable stream systems. Table 5 compares the designed morphological values and ratios to the as-built values and ratios of the restored streams (Appendix B). Overall, the Site was built as designed. The differences between the designed and as-built channels are minor. T1A is being monitored visually and therefore there are no asbuilt data included in Table 5. The Site was planted with a total of nine different species of bare root trees in January 2014. Baseline vegetation monitoring data were collected in February 2014. The Level 1 CVS-EEP protocol (http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm) was used to collect vegetation data. Plot photos from all the vegetation plots can be found in Appendix C. The results of the vegetation baseline monitoring show an average of 589 stems per acre in the planted stream zone (Table 7. Appendix C). Additionally, stem counts within each individual plot were wellabove the required 320 stems per acre except for plots 1 and 6. An attempt to identify all trees was made, but since monitoring was conducted during the dormant season, many were unidentifiable. All trees will be positively identified during the first year of monitoring.
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
6
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
5.0
REFERENCES Harrelson, C.C., C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: an Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Lee, Michael T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm) NCDENR, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2009. Lower Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin Priorities 2009. Raleigh, NC. http://www.nceep.net/services/restplans/Yadkin_Pee_Dee_RBRP_2009_Final.pdf NCDENR, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 6/8/2012. Procedural Guidance and Content Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports. NCEEP Monitoring Report Template, Version 1.5. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=1169848&folderId=7135626 &name=DLFE-53021.pdf Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22: 169-199. Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books. Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. In: Wang, S.S.Y., E.J. Langendoen, and F.D. Shields, Jr. (Eds.). Proceedings of the Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. pp. 12-22. Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, 3rd Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, NCDEHNR, Division of Parks and Recreation. Raleigh, NC. Sprecher, S. W. and Warne, A. G. 2000. "Accessing and Using Meteorological Data to Evaluate Wetland Hydrology," ERDC/EL TR-WRAP-00-01, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, US Environmental Protection Agency, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and NCDENR, Division of Water Quality. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Wilmington, NC.
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
7
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
APPENDIX A General Tables and Figures
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits Jacob's Ladder Stream Restoration Site, EEP Project # 95023 Mitigation Credits Riparian Wetland
Stream Type Length Credits TOTAL CREDITS
R 4,971 4,971
EI 306 204
Non-riparian Wetland
Nitrogen Nutrient Offset
Buffer
EII 140 56
5,231 Project Components
Project Component -orReach ID T1
Design Stationing/ Location 10+00-34+89*
Restoration Footage
Existing Footage
Approach (P1, P2 etc.)
Restoration -orRestoration Equivalent
1,809
P1
Restoration
2,389*
1:1
-
Enhancement I
306
1:1.5
140 498 2,084*
1:2.5 1:1 1:1
T1A-1
50+00-53+06
306
T1A-2 T1A-3 T2
53+06-54+46 54+46-59+44 99+75-121+60*
140 470 1,246
Enhancement II P1 Restoration P1 Restoration Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (linear feet)
Mitigation Units (SMU)
Restoration
4,971
4,971
Enhancement I
306
204
Enhancement II
140
56
Mitigation Ratio
TOTAL SMU 5,231 *Mitigation units have been calculated to exclude the easement exceptions and water utility easements. There were no BMP elements included in this project.
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
Table 2. Project Activity & Reporting History Jacob's Ladder Stream Restoration Site Data Collection Actual Completion Complete or Delivery
Activity or Report Mitigation Plan Final Design - Construction Plans Construction Planting Baseline Monitoring/Report
Feb/March 14
Sept 12 Dec 12 Aug 13 Jan 14 April 14
Table 3. Project Contacts Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site Design Firm
Construction Contractor
Planting Contractor
Monitoring Performers MY-00
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
KCI Associates of North Carolina, PC Landmark Center II, Suite 220 4601 Six Forks Rd. Raleigh, NC 27609 Contact: Mr. Tim Morris Phone: (919) 278-2512 Fax: (919) 783-9266 Wright Contracting, LLC 160 Walker Road Lawndale, NC 28090 Contact: Mr. Stephen James Phone: (704) 692-4633 Forestree Management Co. 1280 Maudis Road Bailey, NC 27807 Contact: Mr. Tony Cortez Phone: (252) 243-2513
KCI Associates of North Carolina, PC Landmark Center II, Suite 220 4601 Six Forks Rd. Raleigh, NC 27609 Contact: Mr. Adam Spiller Phone: (919) 278-2514 Fax: (919) 783-9266
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
Table 4. Project Information Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site Project Name County Project Area (acres) Project Coordinates (lat. and long.) Physiographic Province River Basin USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit DWQ Sub-basin Project Drainage Area Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area CGIA Land Use Classification
Parameters
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site Rowan County 17.2 acres 35.552956 N, 80.653116 W Project Watershed Summary Information Piedmont Yadkin-Pee Dee 03040105 USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 13-17-09 682 acres/1.06 square miles
03040105020040
1.1%/8 acres 15.8% Cultivated, 35.1% Managed Herbaceous Cover, 41.6% Mixed Upland Hardwoods, 6.9% Mixed Hardwoods/Conifers, and 0.5% Southern Yellow Pine Reach Summary Information (Post-Restoration) T1
T1A-1, T1A-2, T1A-3
T2
2,389 VIII 231.6 acres
944 VIII 34.5 acres
2,084 VIII 450.1 acres
Class C, WSIII
Class C, WSIII
Class C, WSIII
C4
B4c/C4
C4
Evolutionary trend
Stage II (Constructed)
Stage II (Constructed)
Stage II (Constructed)
Mapped Soil Series
Chewacla loam
Pacolet sandy loam
Drainage class Soil Hydric status Slope
Poorly drained Non hydric 0-2%
Well drained Non hydric 0-2%
AE (portion in backwater of Irish Buffalo Creek only)
N/A
AE (portion in backwater of Irish Buffalo Creek only)
Native vegetation community
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest & Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
0%
0%
0%
Length of reach (linear feet) Valley classification Drainage area (acres) NCDWQ Water Quality Classification Morphological Description (stream type)
FEMA classification
Pacolet sandy loam & Chewacla loam Well drained Non hydric 0-2%
Regulatory Considerations Regulation Waters of the United States – Section 404 Waters of the United States – Section 401 Endangered Species Act* Historic Preservation Act* Coastal Zone Management Act * (CZMA)/ Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Yes
Yes, received 404 permit
N/A
Yes
Yes, received 401 permit
N/A
No No
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Essential Fisheries Habitat*
No
Jacob’s Ladder Stream Restoration Site EEP Contract # 003983
Floodplain development permit completed through Rowan County N/A
N/A N/A
KCI Associates of NC, PA Final Baseline Monitoring Document
0
~
~ c:
"'IJ :I:
G'l
0
iii(;)
"'IJ
~
m ,....
b
0
0
£0 z
II I
z -I
-:a
..::!l
m
g z
"D
5-I
< ..::!l
I Ii
n
n zcn
::0 0
0
en en bi m n
m
~
~
:::t
0
0
")(
~ cn m
z
z
~
!I:
zm
-I
.,, I!,..,.. ~ ~
:Al
m
D
"' ... ,N
"tis:
>~
Z::::j
>:!j
;;;:i!m
;nz
001 ~;:
..~:ii
~f;1;:
Cl!j'l!S
-:a"Tl-a~
-t>-4>
:;!
m I
-...:':::-~~--...:::_,' , ", ' ,'~ ! \ \,'---- - - '- .... ' . . . ., n '-\. \, '-'" --- - - . . .-... ::............. .::-.. . . . . ez ·~
REVISIONS
..,_.,..,
I
DATI
1:1
~I
s;r= z-t
-uc
m&:i
~>
-IQ)
:;:
;i;:z: 0 !:!
u
n
c» q
~
.........
CJ+~
~~~
"1!11!\1
I
I
i \I
I
"- '
,__,
u~~-i~o
\
,
1 I
'\ 1
'-1
\
REACH T1
CHINA GROVE, ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1
---- -
~
'-
\
I
I I
'-
I I
ASSOCIATES IF ti:
I
:::i5:KC I ~
:-.
.J
..._').: I
'I
~
4601 SIX FORKS ROAD RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2T609
z~
~
8~li1 !j! Cl
;?!~~
~tJ~~ Jl§;!l~ "QN
!:ll'l ;l~o>
-IQ)
:;:
;i;:z: 0 !:!
u
n
--------
/
/\
...
'-
\
\ \
\
\
'11,, ' ' ·, II I \ \ \ \ , , \ ' 11 I \ \ \ '. \ \ \ ' '
, - - \ , \ ,\\_
ii 11, 11 11 ; 111 11
I
\\\\
\
\ iBi!
\
\
I I
,, , ' , , - , \ . ' - \ \
\ \ \. \ \ \
\
1
\ \ \ \
-p
'b
\I
\
I
\
\
\ \ \ \
1
:(1 Ii'\
1 11
I
~
1
,,.
I 11
I
Jll
I ; 1\11
- \
r,1
\
,'
\ \
--
CHINA GROVE, ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH T1A
8-
:l!J
!'I
"I 1 ,
I
}
',
' \' \ \ \ \ \ ,
'\
\ \ \\ \
'"9°'-,,,,,,,,, ,,
,_)k
'...
:::i5:KC I
I ,
I
1:11:
I - 1
I I
1 I I I
I'
1111 1' \1 ! '.S,...1~1 v,~~ \ I
1 I I 1I 11111 11 111 1 \ 1\1\I I 1 IIII I I 1 II 1I 1 I
',
1\ I
1"6~up
~,
11\11 ~\\\\\~ 11 11,1 ,~,,1, \I~
.
/
4601 SIX FORKS ROAD RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27609
--
//
_'(?
/
/ I
I
/
-- -
I
_n
l;J'\
~
',
\
\
i:~Wtht .........
~~
"...
''.
\
' ' - , ..._
\
)(
•'Iii
- 1t
'\
........
.......
..............~ ................ .......
......
I'... '
T
~
,. -
"'-
' ---;-- --
-IC=; - .:;; :: ::
',
......
--, _--
' , .......................
- -. . ...
-,
',~....... ' '
""'-' , , '
\.
' -. . . . . . . . . '
'-,
"
\
'-,
''-\ \
'~
Ii
·~
', '\
',
'..__ ....._ '- ,
1, ..........._
"'.
I \
~ ...
\
\ \
\ \.._ ' - , ' , .,_ '" -.. .._ ',.._ ' \ , ' , '
"'' f'•:I(
CON8£RV>.TION EASEM;NT
J
/,--
,--
~/
'b
,
/
1-~
/'/
1 1,
I/
I;
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / / / // }/ J
/1
/ 11 / ; I 1 I
/
~
~/;
/ / /1 1 JJl11 111\ , \. / / l ; 1 1(l111 l , / \ I 111\"'/ / I / / /I I I I I 1 I \ \ , '/ I I / I I I I \.\ o J , \ \ \ /1'11'11 1 / \ ,, , / 1 /1 1 1111 '-, ' ''' 1 / 111 11 '·, \ \ '
1111 1 1 ,1 \ 1 \ ~ 1 1 '
I~\
I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1111 11 11111, 1 I : I 11 I1 I1 I \.\
11
I \ \ 0 \ \ \ \ I I \ \ \j.\ \ \ '\ \\ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \
I \ ' \'-.. I 1 ' .,_ .,_ ' \ \\ \ \\ . I \ \ \ ' \ \\ \ \ I ' ' ' .,, ' ' ,\ \\ \ \\ \\\ ' " I I "-... '-.._ '.'- \ \ ' \ \ \ \ ' ,, '\'.\--(-II ' ......, , , ' , ' ' " , \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ ( \ \\
\ \ \ \\
I
\
I \ \ \\\ \\\ \\
\\\ ' ' \'\\\ \ \ '.\\\\ ' ' ' '
\\I \ I
1 ' \ ' ' ' ' '1' , \ , 1 \ 1
\ \ '-
I\\\
1\\1\ I 11 / \\ I
~1/ 11\'\\,\\\, \ ~\~ I\\\ I \\\I\ ~.\¥~~"\\ \\\ \~ '':\\ 111 1 1 '\':., .... ,,~,\,\\,\\\~ ''''\';,1 ' \\''\S) ,\,::\'~,\11 ,,,, ,,, , 'I.'
-IQ)
:;:
;i;:z: 0 !:!
u
n
REACH T2
CHINA GROVE, ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
JACOB'S LADDER STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT
==
:::i5:KC I 4601 SIX FORKS ROAD RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27609
ASSOCIATES IF ti: ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS
~7sz- ~ J
i:~Wtht .........
~~
si
~
~
~
'8 z
I'... '
REVISIONS
..,_,..,
q
Oii
q
,,,..
q
I
. .1(
1:1
~I
s;r= z-t
"tic
m&:i
~>
-IQ)
:;:
;i;:z: 0 !:!
u
n
J,...
'
"
-'
REACH T2
CHINA GROVE, ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
rrSsk
- '-.. .
Zt:;!;c
0
~,.qLocb ........._ -
1~181-f 13uf:".
--..
...~.
/
i
6
~
f'
8
\
/
/
/
\ \
'--,
\
'-
''\
\
==
\
\
'
/
....... 117+00',
'',,,
'fr0 'r l'!r1
:::i5:KC I
/
\
/ '\
4601 SIX FORKS ROAD RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27609
ASSOCIATES IF ti: ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS
"
/
0
·>~
1l
~'"'
im "' g~~~ ~>~
~i;i~ ... ~'"
Q~Pj
JACOB'S LADDER STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT
q
Cll
~
q
q ~ q
\
~
i:~Wtht .........
·--
~~
11
!il
:::j
i
I'... '
REVISIONS
,,.._,..,
I
. .1(
RIPARIAN ZONE PIEDMONT ALLUVIAL PLANTING ZONE= 14-2ACRES (1117.579 SQ.FT.) ~~~~-'iZ.
12" - 18" BARE ROOT MATERIAi. 11211 STEMS/ACRE (Ir X 5.25' SPACING), RANOOM SPECIES PLACEMENT
______________ _ SQUARE CllT-----~
!:QMMQNNAME
&!:IENTIFI!; NAME
RIYERBIRCH GREEN ASH TUUPPOPLAR SYCAMORE WILLOW OAK BEAUTYBERRY TAG ALDER SOUTHERN RED OAK -ITEOAK PERSIMMON
BETULA NIGRA FRAXINUS PENNSYLVANICA LIRIDDENDRON T\JLIPIFERA PLATANUS OCCIDENTAi.iS QUERCUS PHELLOS CALLICARPA AMERICANA AUNUS SERRULATA QUERCUS FALCATA QUERCUS Al.BA DIOSPYROS \llRGINIANA
%QFTDTAI.
#OF PLANT'S
17 16 12 13 15 17 8 1
2200
BUDS (FACING UPWARD)
1900 1600 17CO
2000 2200
1100 100 200 100 13,000
2
1
SECTION VIEW
MESIC ZONE
~
MESIC MIXED HARD\MlOD PLANTING ZONE= 1.13ACRES ("9,337 SQ.FT.)
I
12" - 18" BARE ROOT MATERIAi. 11211 STEMS/ACRE (Ir X 5.25' SPACING), RANOOM SPECIES PLACEMENT
!:QMMQNNAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME
PINOAK TUUPPOPLAR SOllTHERN RED OAK -ITEOAK PERSIMMON
QUERCUS P~STRIS LIRIDDENDRON T\JLIPIFERA QUERCUS FALCATA QUERCUS Al.BA DIOSPYROS \llRGINIANA
% OF TOTAi.
#OF PLANTS
25 19 19 19 19
~
300 300 300 300
1600
l -r r " ~ ~ l I I i I I I I I I
3'
UJ
I I
Mm§; - LIVE STAKES REDUCED ON INNER BAR LOCATIONS ONSIDE MEANDER BENDS).
0
0
~
:::j
0
UJ
i
i
0
PLAN VIEW SlREAM ZONE
D
STREAM ZONE LIVE STAKES: 1.6' TO 2' LENGTHS, 112' TO :I!' DIAMETER, 2 RO\o\'S AT 3' CENTER SPACING (SEE DETAIL), RANDOM SPECIES PLACEMENT
COMMON NAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME
BLACK WILLOW SILKY WILLOW SILKY DC>GV.UOD ELDERBERRY
SAUXNIGRA SALIX SERICEA CORNUS AMOMUM SAMBUCUS CANADENSll:l
LIVE STAKES DETAIL SCALE: NTS
,_ "' ,_
"',._ "'
!!!
z
0
~!I! \!! u
ON
:::dm z
"-:z:
...... oz u~ "'a: a:::; ~~ ... "'z .,OU .... "' it
mm "' ~ .:;
)(,_
Li)~ 5z
~~ ;;;
...a:--'
"'z "' < z
:J 0
....~ a: Iw C3 Cl -, :I: z 0 < Ii: 0:: 0:: 0 Nw a.. z ....
u f:: z r1 0 !::: f:: (.) :::!: 0~ .... ' a: ~:::!:
~
0:: ....
..
NC QAID
~-·
-80'-40'
O'
CJ)
..,..
0
g a:
...
I-
II)
w
:I:
u < w < z a: (!)
:c u MARCH201~
"""''GRAPHIC
PLANTING PLAN 51£ET
9
OF
10
PIEDMONT ALLUVIAL ZONE
~
~
MESIC HARDWOOD ZONE
D
STREAM ZONE
>~B1 Lt~ ~
.... "' !!! .... z
"',._ "' 0
~!I! \!! u
ON
:::dm z
"-:z:
...... oz u~ "'a: a:::; ~~ ... "'z .,OU ....
mm
"' it "' ~ .:;
)(
~~ ;;;
...a:--'
"'z "' 0
0
0
Q
....
Li)~ 5z
< z
.... (..)
:J 0
a:
w C3 -,
:I:
0 Ii: ~ w a.. 0z Cl
0:: 0::
Cl z CIQ
:5 i= ~~ cc -
....
-
z
~z
0
u
~
z II) w 0 !::: :I: (..) :::!: 0~ u ~ ~ ::!: a: a:
~
0:: ....
NC QRJD
~llAD'IS
CJ)
g a: (!)
< z
:c u
..,.,
MARCH201~
"""''GRAPHIC
PLANTING PLAN 51£ET
10
OF 10
